The squawkers who oppose any and all reasonable gun control measures come up with the stupidest arguments as to why we should not take reasonable steps to curb gun violence.

Comments

WOW the insanity continues unabated.............................let's outlaw drugs and prostitution too while we're at it. And driving drunk. And running naked through downtown at noon. And driving 130 miles per hour on the bypass. And men knocking up women and then runningoft without paying child support. And rape. And robbing banks. And cashing your dead Mamma's social security check for 10 years. And believing liberal principles that are so stupid your brain might implode.

If a reasonable measure to keep criminals from getting guns can be implemented, I can support it, BUT that will NEVER happen....pass all the laws that can be imagined and criminals will still have just as many guns. Gun laws only forbid law abiding citizens from having guns.

Ban everyone from owning a firearm (At least the honest ones who obey all laws)...what could possibly go wrong? Oh wait.....they would be defenseless against the thugs that have the guns illegally. Nevermind!

Gun control advocates should give up trying to convert the educated minds that frequent this site and the South. There is a reason GA (and the majority of the South) is at the bottom in education, but near the top in gun ownership. Which means what? A bunch of below average idiots packing heat for their below average offspring to accidentally shoot their neighbors below average offspring.

Can you correctly state, in a reasonable argument, where gun control has worked as so many of you apparently envision it working? From what little I can see, there is very little that can be done to stop a derainged individual by simply restricting the choice of their weapon. Are you going to ban the Internet? It provides all sorts of information on improvised explosives, how to use electricity for many things it was never meant to be used for, and how powerful vaporized gasoline is. Regulating guns will only affect honest people, because they are the ones obeying the laws. Or do you really believe the dishonest ones will folllow the rules. At one point, in New York City, it was common practice to mug a Cop to get their hide out weapon. Which was never reported because the hideout was really a drop gun they weren't supposed to have to begin with. Plus, if you knew a Cop, he could usually get you a piece. Normally one they had picked up on the street. Now this wasn't all Policeman in New York, but it was enough of them profiting from the illegal gun trade. What makes you think it could get any better with new laws?

If there were fewer guns out there, then criminals would have fewer guns to illegally obtain. Living without a gun does not mean you are less vulnerable. I have survived (thank the good Lord) without ever owning or holding a firearm of any kind.

Yes, evil people will always find creative ways to inflict death and destruction no matter what is legal or illegal. Most people could not build a bomb with an instruction manual. Those same people could accidentally kill someone with a gun. Guns are so dangerous because they are so easy to use. It takes a different kind of crazy to kill someone with your bare hands or a knife or a bat.

"Git-r-done! Roll Tide! Go dawgs! (fill in your favorite southern saying)" Your gitting off the reservation with that line of thinking, bible schooler. Take on the issue and leave the sacred icons out of it. No need to provoke the whole damn tribe.

Sherwood, i see your educated mind on here daily as well a the rest of us at the bottom of the education pole. Being one of the uneducated reading and responding to some of the squawks would like you to know that i have a college education and i am sure there are others on here as well. You need to find you a more educated place to live, read, and respond to the lowly educated citizens of the south, if you live in the south.

Sigh. Not on this subject you don't. It is critical and I believe in it as strongly as I believe in existence itself. I just think it's easier to handle when you don't get into extraneous issues. I actually intended my chiding to be humorous not scolding. Apologies offered as they obviously came across brusquely.

thank you for helping me prove my point with your poorly constructed sentences and grammatical errors and not even addressing my comments but rather making highly emotional statements about me but kind of insulting yourself in the same sense thank you

Libtards are invading watch out. I sure you can make all of us dumbys understand why Chicargo & NY have the stickest gun laws & the highest murder rate with guns. Being the dumby I am I thought it was because criminals don't care about laws but could you please set us staight.

It didn't know CT was in the south. I sure as heck didn't know CO was in the south. Is CA in the south? I didn't get to far in school, but I don't think it is. What I am saying in my MD (as in medical doctor) talk is the argument you present is a non sequitur; it lacks logic. Chicago celebrated its 500th murder last year, is Chicago in the south...You get my point.

Sherwood - You do realize that the south has less gun related crime than anywhere in the country???? You are the "not so smart" person in this case. The reason for this is because you do not understand the 2nd amendment. It is pretty easy to understand. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from criminals and an out of control government. At not point is hunting ever mentioned (not sure why people think it is ok to ban weapons that are not used for hunting). If you do understand the 2nd amendment, then you think it should just be removed. In either case, it shows your low intelligence level. You are obviously do not think very much of the "South". How many people have you ever known that retired and moved to the "North"? The South is a great place to live. Sorry that you do not think very much of it!

Sixty, you do realize that you are wrong, right? Of course not. Faux news and your quarterly bulletin from the NRA told you how to think.

What is funny is that you have not read my views in what level of gun control I think would me most effective.

They retire and move to warm sunny Florida from the cold North and their high paying job. For the life of me I can't understand why it's so expensive to live in New York, but so cheap to live in the South...why could it be...

Sixty, like fcarroll and black falcon, have done nothing but help me prove my point.

I don't dislike the South. I dislike hardcore conservatives who don't have their own opinions. They rely on Faux News and other hardcore conservatives to tell them how to think.

I know I am knocking the intelligence of many people from the South, but it is only to prove a point. The same group of people who are known for being below average in the intelligence department are the ones saying, "don't take my guns, you idiots don't know what's best for 'Merica."

Why not just kill them off. That is your rational reasoning. The best way is to put them in prison and keep them there. But society has created narcissistic personalities that have no conscience. They only care about their cell phones and money. Cross them and see what happens. Children use to love their families, but no more. They grow up and do not see siblings or talk to them for years. What is different than it was years ago it the lack of a God in their lives. It is sad, but it is also not curable. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Good words even today.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with the second amendment or gun control. We are talking about terrorist weapons, assault weapons and massacre instruments not guns. I strongly believe in owning guns. I have been a member of NRA for years and know they do a lot of good with education. I am not against the NRA. I am against weapons of terrorism, assault and mass murder. There is no constitutional right or need to manufacture them, to sell them, to own them or to transport them. Civilians have no constitutionally protected right to possess them. Keep them in the hands of the LEA and military.

Please define terrorism, assault and mass murder. How many people must be killed for it to be a mass murder? Two, five, ten, 100? Any weapon can achieve this fate. Granted, it sound warm and emotional to say ban these assault weapons because they are used for terrorism and mass murder, but in reality, a snub –nose 38 can achieve the same goal.

Also, true assault weapons (the ones the military use) have been banned from the public since 1964.

There is actually a definition. A mass murder is more than four deaths at any one time in any one place. A serial murderer kills one person at a time over a period of time. (See Foxx, James; Seigel, Larry, or Anderson, Jack)

Perhaps much of the anxiety about the weapons is centered on how quickly a weapon can deliver projectiles. Most revolvers have a capacity of six bullets, restricting the number of people who can be harmed before the shooter has to reload. I don't really care if people carry revolvers but a weapon that can deliver triple digits counts per minute scare the crap out of me.

Even with a 6 shot revolver, this cannot be stopped by innocent unarmed children. Someone warped enough to shoot children will be able to mass murder by reloading multiple times because they are MENTALLY IMPAIRED to have any respect for human life.

Everyone knows the definition of terrorism, assault and mass murder. We need to quit majoring in minors. The real discussion focuses on the substance of the second amendment and it doesn't give absolute carte blanche for freedom to posses weaponry for any reason we choose. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

BTW, why do you suppose they won't let us blog on the article reporting Rick Langley's joining Watson Spence Law Firm? I wanted to say something about that without being censored. But I will restrain myself. Well, somewhat. I can't understand that affiliation. It seems Watson Spence is a low key punch and win firm and now they bring on this loud mouth Scotchman (has to be with red hair and face) who has all the polish of an oxidized wash pot.

Thanks for making a comment...I was curious......thought maybe he must have been related to someone at the AH or had a bad mark against him somewhere and they didn't want to stir the pot, so to speak. Don't know anything about him. I have some lawyers on an inlaw side of the family I will have to ask about him. Ta ta....

Well good Fryar, the purpose of the Second Ammendment, which many have chosen to corrupt, is to provide a group of individuals trained in the handling of current Military Weapons to provide backup for the standing army and Militias should the need arise. The Director of Civilian Marksmanship Program was set up to provide Military weapons to individuals which met certain participation standards. They still will sell you a Garand. In times past they sold Bolt Actions, Garands and M1 Carbines, 45 automatics. All representative of the Military weapons in use. They stopped due to the new weapons being fully automatic. Now the so called Assault Weapons are nothing more than a Semi-automatic version of the current military weapon of choice of the US Governemnt. So how isn't it covered under the intent of the Second Amendment? Why do you fear folks that own these weapons? There are one heck of a lot of them out there that have never been used in any of these assaults. In the hands of one heck of a lot of honest citizens. Any protective agency will tell you the only thiong you can do to stop a crazy is to neutralize them. For what is to stop an individual from raiding a National Guard Armory to get a Grenade Launcher and ammo if they want to? It is how most of the weapons Mexico is screaming about got into the hands of the Gangs. From their own Police Stations and Army Armory's.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment is one sentence. It gives a purpose for the right to bear arms. There is no question the purpose has changed dramatically. Keep in mind that the purpose here is not for individual self-defense, assault, murder, mayhem, terrorism, sport. etc. Of course, we can as the court has done imply purposes, legitimately. But the purpose has to be rational as evidenced in the wording. There in, I believe the Constitution excludes weapons of terror, assault, mass murder and destruction. I am glad you see the wholeness of the second amendment Walt. I would like to see you examine it to its logical end.

I remember growing up in the early 60's in Orlando FL our church used to take us to the rifle range during the summer to teach us how to shoot a rifle. You could buy a .22 rifle for around $20 & a box of 50 ammo was less than 50 cent. Times sure have changed.

Agreeing with some of what @sherwood said and lot of what @FryarTuk said...although I don't belong to the NRA. This issue has nothing to do with trying to ban guns or coming into your homes to take your guns and women, it's about restricting access to weapons of terror. As a Republican aptly said this a.m. about the most recent incident in California where a student injured two classmates after shooting at them with a 12 - gauge shotgun, "Can you imagine if he had an assault rifle?" Not the best example to cite, but it does speak to the level of violence perpetrated by a shotgun vs. an assault rifle that could possibly fire off multiple rounds in short periods of time.

Also, in @sherwood's defense, I've seen a lot of people on this site make light of ethnic dialect and nobody says anything about it. When I troll around on some of my favorite liberal sites, I make a point of admonishing my liberal friends from the Northeast or West for making light of preconceived stereotypes about southern heritage and southern living (i.e. uneducated, hicks, hillbillies, southern drawl, etc.). Not cool. And if I ever do it on this site, I would hope someone would call me out for it.

PS, I would also love to ban stupid soundbites about banning everything that results in death that have nothing to do with common sense gun related legislation.

Here is a soundbite for you. England, which has a gun ban, had 35 gun deaths last year compared to approximately 9000 murders (excludes cops killing perpetraters and law abiding citizens killing in self defense and suicide). Gun control advocates would use that statitistic to say "see, gun control works". Unfortunately gun deaths is not the whole story.

The statistic that needs to be looked at is how many violent deaths occur per 100,000 people. Guess what happens when you look at that statistic? England ranks number one in the world at 2034 violent deaths per 100,000 people vs the US ranking number 28 at 499 violent deaths per 100,000. Want to know why? Because the law abiding citizens of England are unarmed and the criminals know it.

Now, everyone wants to outlaw large capacity magazines and military style rifles. Do you know how many of the 9000 murders were from large capacity/military style rifles - less than 400.

The gun control debate and hoopla over multi capacity magazines and military is a creation of our government and the media so that we feel good about the government taking away more of our rights and freedoms.

Not trying to be a smart ass but could you tell me where you got those statistics or break them down further for me? Just out of curiosity. Those statistics seem kind of high for England. I would think less than 400 murders would have been committed in England and probably less than 10% by a firearm. But am curious as to where you got your stastistics.

I did not watch the video as I wrote the comment but did it from memory. I think i am pretty close on the numbers but if you watch the video and I am way off please feel free to correct me. I am not trying to mislead anyone.

12,664 homicides, 8,583 were by firearms less 400 justifiable by law enforcement less 260 justifiable by private citizens = 7,923 murders. I was high with the 9000 and did not specify those as gun related homicides. .

There were 12,664 homicides in the US in 2011. Of those12,664 homicides 8,583 were by firearms. Of those 8,583 firearm homicides 400 were justifiable by law enforcement and another 260 were justifiable by private citizens leaving 7,923 unjustified homicides by firearms in the US in 2011.

Thanks USTPC........OK got ya....hate to be so thick but never was good with math...son-in-law is an actuary and has to explain things to me all the time but loves it....after all it is his job and he relishes the idea of every minute detail (I am embarrassed to say I almost had to call him to explain it to me) but now I see, you meant the US.....duh is me...I thought you meant 9000 murders in England. Forgive the stupidity of an old lady....sigh sigh sigh.

Your ID is appropriate = UR WRONG Again!!!
For those who know guns, your argument about an assault rifle having a higher level of violence is absolutely off base and shows why there should be intelligent debates instead of uneducated and emotional responses about "reasonable" gun controls.

Depending on the weapon, there are shotguns that can shoot multiple rounds of ammo and can be much more destructive than a rifle with a magazine with multiple rounds of ammo. To further educate you, a shotgun spreads many pellets at close range, where a rifle fires one piece of lead at an intended target.

The problem is that we have too many shallow-thinkers about what are the root causes of these mass killings. Jumping on the wrong train of thought about banning specific rifles might make you feel better, but will not solve the issue of mass killings. THINK!!!!

Forgive me @B4it, you are exactly right, for in the story about the shooting in Calif, the shooter did actually spread pellets, which is what caused INJURY (not death) to the second person, who happened to be a teacher (my mistake). But still prove to me that if the Sandy Hook gunman had used the shotgun used by the student in Calif, vs the Bushmaster the damage would have been equal or worse. Keep in mind that the victims in Sandy Hook were shot up to eleven times, the carnage was over in less than 20 seconds, and he managed to get off 150 rounds. I don't claim to be a gun expert (in fact I attributed the comment to a Republican commentator), but once again Educate me. Your gun comparisons don’t convince me…at all, but it’s still good conversation.

Basically put, a Point Man in Vietnam often chose a Shotgun over a fully automatic M16 because of it's ability to put down a hail of fire. In Columbine, the primary weapon of one was a shotgun. In Colorado the primary weapon was a shotgun because the so called assault rifle jammed.

Still doesn't answer my question, but appreciate the information though. Also, in Columbine, the primary weapon of the other was a TEC- 9, which he unloaded 55 times vs. 25 times for the shotgun (used by the other guy). Also, they were in the school for nearly an hour. But we can do this all day, and I probably won't revisit anymore comments here. Thanks.
What you may not realize is that I am very leery of using the words "ban" when it comes to guns. I too am scared that guns in the wrong hands means bad things for law abiding citizens, but when tragedies happen that offer opportunity for legitimate conversation, and the best we get are dumb sound bites, it's not productive for anybody. I actually though this as an opportunity for the NRA to get out in front of this conversation, while still protecting legitimate 2nd amendment rights, but the best it could do was “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

It has been stated & confirmed several times that all the kids in Sandy Hook were killed with pistols, the assault weapon was found in the trunk of the car. Of course the libtard media does not like to mention that only when there cornered.

You are wrong. The Bushmaster XM-15 assault weapon was the weapon of choice along with these high volume magazine terrorist firearms recovered at the school:10mm Glock 20 SF handgun, 9mm SIG Sauer handgun. A shotgun was found in the car Adam Lanza drove to the elementary school where he slaughtered 20 six year old children begging for their lives and six adults. Some of the six year old bodies had 8-12 bullets in them. He had already killed his mother who provided the guns for him. Do not profane the lives of these children and staff by misinformation or trying to use it any way that defends protection of having weapons of mass murder. That doesn't fall under the category of ignorance but evil.

"But still prove to me that if the Sandy Hook gunman had used the shotgun used by the student in Calif, vs the Bushmaster the damage would have been equal or worse. Keep in mind that the victims in Sandy Hook were shot up to eleven times, the carnage was over in less than 20 seconds, and he managed to get off 150 rounds."

The shooter if Cali. used birdshot and the most common is # 7 which is 0.010 " dia. and looses approx half it's energy after traveling 10 ft with approx 5" of penetration. It has a max. effective range of approx 100 ft. If he would have used 00 buck shot which is 0.32 " dia and a max effective range in excess of 100 yards. There are nine 00 buckshot pellets in a 12 ga. 2-3/4" shell. But the proof is in the Aurora Co. theater shooting where the shooter used a 12 ga. pump shotgun and nearly 100 people were injured. The Bushmaster, Holmes used, only fired ONE shot before it jammed, resulting in an injury to a ceiling tile. If Lanza had used the Saiga shotgun in his trunk he certainly could have caused as much or more damage than the AR-15.

Now as far as the statement that Lanza fired 150 shots in 20 seconds, I call BS on that. He did his killing in far longer than 20 seconds, it took over 10 minutes for the police to respond and minutes after that to organize their assault. He may have fired 150 rds. but a full auto M-16 has a practical rate of fire of only 360 rds. per minute divide by 60 sec.= 6 per sec. X 20 sec= 120 rds, 150 rds. fired is NOT possible even with a full auto. This statement is a cover for the poor response of the local PD. Aimed fire from a minor caliber like the .223 is more like 1 per second, something doesn't add up. More likely he did his killing over several minutes in that Victim Disarmament Zone, the Sandy Hook School, while the local PD got their act together outside.

I'll try again as this wasn't posted the first, go figure. The biggest problem is people like urwrong listen to the libtard media who only tell you half the story. The assaualt rifle at Sandy Hook was in the trunk of the shooters car. He used pistols to kill all those kids. But the gun control media forgot to tell you that.

This is absolutely not true. The coroners' reports confirm the children's deaths were cause by the bullets from the Bushmaster rifle. The police report the presence of the Bushmaster and clips. The media is not creating this. Not sure why you are saying it?

Here is another sound bite for you. The argument that we should ban vehicles and knives and bats is used because the gun control advocates are all about stopping senseless killings and murders. But if that were true then why focus only on guns? Shouldn't they also be concerned about the senseless killings from other weapons?

Most vehicle deaths occur from high speed collisions. So why don't we pass a law that limits the speed of vehicle to 45 mph or less? That would save lives and that is what this is all about, right? Saving lives?

A bat is the number one weapon used in non gun related homicides. That is easily solvable by eliminating the production of wooden and aluminum baseball bats and making everyone use the plastic bat with a wiffle ball.

Gun control advocates say these arguments are stupid and irrelevent. But if the goal is to stop senseless killings and death of innocent people then the argument is valid and relevent.

Just an FYI, Sherwood_Eagle_Alum....I have a college degree. The difference between those of us who do not support more gun control and those of you who do is not intelligence or IQ. There are smart people on both sides when you base it on IQ. The difference is that those of us who are pro gun are also pro constitution and actually have some common sense and understanding that guns are not the problem, people are.

URWrong...it doesn't bother me when I travel (I was born a Yankee but raised all over and consider myself a Southerner, accent and all). Sure, folks make comments about my accent. As a matter of fact it has been used to great advantage in places you would never imagine. It has gotten me dinner in a pub in Dublin, Ireland, a chicken dinner at Popeye's Chicken courtesy of 2 red headed Irish cops in Boston who loved my accent. One does well with a southern accent overseas, especially in those countries that were once part of the USSR, like Estonia......the people there want to do nothing but talk, talk, talk and feed you, constantly. So I may appear to be an uneducated hick to some but I love my status and don't care, and let them call me a honkey and a cracker all they like for I know what I am....a human being...that is it..no label.....

Drugs have been made illegal, and bad guys still make/sell/use them. Laws have done a great job controlling the problem (sarcasm). In regards to guns, bad guys are always going to have guns. Make all the laws you want. It's not going to get them off the streets any more than it has drugs. My biggest concerns in this debate are #1, I want as much freedom as the Constitution and Bill of Rights allows me , and #2, I want the freedom to choose to not be at a disadvantage with the bad guys when it comes to firepower. What the Democrats are pushing now serves only as a step to limit my right to protect myself, my family, my property, and other innocent lives.

"I want the freedom to choose to not be at a disadvantage with the bad guys when it comes to firepower." Well now just how far do you want to go? Some of the bad guys used commercial airliners for their terroist deeds.

This just proves how illogical the arguments about terrorist weaponry are.

You are right about STEPS. If you look back many things start as steps an grow until it owns you. Read how Social Securty started and where it is today. Consider OSHA or EPA. Are they your servants or your MASTERS. Have you ever dealt with the IRS? Watch the steps.

It's not "bad guys" that kill 8 or 10 or 12 or 26 or 31. It's people who can buy guns over the counter. No law or regulation will stop a criminal from having a gun. But laws could limit the type of weapons that anyone could buy. It the ban on assault rifles and large magazines was still in place would the latest mass killings have taken place?

Right on the money Fryar. At one time I thoght of Sherwood as a respectable orgnanization. This character is slowly but surely changing all of that. Maybe we should just all walk around with some Larry the cable guy pepper spray. I bet they sell it at the same store that Sherwood buys Midol

Laws were made so the criminals could break them, and banning guns would be just another law to be broken. I still think bullying plays a big part of some of these killings. From what I heard on the news regarding the California shooting recently, the shooter was tired of being bullied at school. There should be more focas on bullying and mental health than on guns.

Is the core issue weapon control or is it the reliance on violence to solve issues? Violence seems to be connected to testosterone. Women, generally, do not become violent to solve an issue. They may be violent towards their children and/or is self defense, but if women have issues, they will stand in the middle of the street and have a screaming match. It may lead to fisticuffs and hair pulling but rarely is a weapon used.

Of course, this is a generalization. Many girl gangs and single women carry weapons, not as offensive weapons but as defensive ones.

Women, and men, can take classes in self-defense where the car keys become lethal weapons; do we ban them? We live in a country of abuse; whatever we are fortunate to have, we use and abuse to excess and then complain about each other doing so.

Since Australia sequestered the mass murder weaponry the reduction of deaths by firearms and high volume magazine weaponry has reduced appreciably. During the period of the 90's when the terroristic weaponry was restricted there were less attacks by same and less deaths. This is not a gun control issue, it is an issue related to mass murder weaponry and terroristic firepower. There is no reasonable argument that successfully defeats the proposition. None. It is one less arrow in the quiver of violence, terrorism and mass murder.

You purposefully distort the facts to demonstrate your point. Australia did not ban just "mass murder weaponry" as you deem it, they banned ALL firearms. While death by firearms are down slightly since the ban, overall homicide rates are UP, along with other types of assaultive behavior, which are significantly higher. Sell that koolaid somewhere else.

You are completely wrong, son of Heard. Australia did not ban all firearms. They restricted and reformed firearm ownership through licensing, registering and buying back. Your statistics for Australia homicide is not correct. In fact since the 1996 reform there hasn't been one mass murder in Australia without absolutely no impact on violent crime. I won't go into further details but you if you understand anything about the Christian Science Monitor's reliability I direct you to an article which is well written as follows:
The Christian Science Monitor
Could the US learn from Australia's gun-control laws?
As the US debates its gun laws in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting, some Australians are urging the US to consider modeling its laws after Australia's.
By Helen Clark, Contributor / December 24, 2012

It's the all Asia edition so you might have to dig a little on the net. They can show you how to do it while you're hanging with Lorenzo and the fellas over at the juvy center.

URWrongagain wrote: > "But still prove to me that if the Sandy Hook gunman had used the shotgun used by the student in Calif, vs the Bushmaster the damage would have been equal or worse. Keep in mind that the victims in Sandy Hook were shot up to eleven times, the carnage was over in less than 20 seconds, and he managed to get off 150 rounds."

The shooter in Cali. used birdshot and the most common is # 7 which is 0.010 " dia. and looses approx half it's energy after traveling 10 ft with approx 5" of penetration. It has a max. effective range of approx 100 ft. If he would have used 00 buck shot which is 0.32 " dia and a max effective range in excess of 100 yards, the damage would have been worse. There are nine 00 buckshot pellets in a 12 ga. 2-3/4" shell. But the proof is in the Aurora Co. theater shooting where the shooter used a 12 ga. pump shotgun and nearly 100 people were injured. The Bushmaster, Holmes used, only fired ONE shot before it jammed, resulting in an injury to a ceiling tile. If Lanza had used the Saiga shotgun in his trunk he certainly could have caused as much or more damage than the AR-15.

Now as far as the statement that Lanza fired 150 shots in 20 seconds, I call BS on that. He did his killing in far longer than 20 seconds, it took over 10 minutes for the police to respond and minutes after that to organize their assault. He may have fired 150 rds. but a full auto M-16 has a practical rate of fire of only 360 rds. per minute divide by 60 sec.= 6 per sec. X 20 sec= 120 rds, 150 rds. fired is NOT possible even with a full auto. This statement is a cover for the poor response of the local PD. Aimed fire from a minor caliber like the .223 is more like 1 per second, something doesn't add up. More likely he did his killing over several minutes in that Victim Disarmament Zone, the Sandy Hook School, while the local PD got their act together outside.

If you say so, but my argument was to defend your ability to hang on to your rifles that you use for sport and hunting, but if you want to make an argument for the lethal ability of a shotgun, then feel free to add it to the conversation of weapons that need to be discussed. As i said before, these comparisons don't impress or convince me in any of my beliefs that LEGITIMATE conversation is needed on this issue and your attempt to defend the AR against a shotgun just made me stronger in my resolve.

US is number one in the world in gun ownership, number 28 in the world in gun homicides.

Britain has the 2nd highest overall crime rate, 5th highest robbery rate, 4th highest burglary rate in EU. Britain is rated as the most violent country in the EU with 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Where do you think the US rates in comparison? We have 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people - less than 1/4 the violent crime rate of Britain which has strict gun control.

Let's keep things in perspective. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment is one sentence. It gives a purpose for the right to bear arms - national defense. The founding fathers added this and the other 9 ammendments of the Bill of Rights at the urging of the lesser populated colonies who believed the rights should be enumerated. Most of the representatives saw no need for them but went along to get along. The reason why guns were allowed was in order to have an armed militia for national protection. The bar is raised for purpose not a carte blanche freedom for weapons of terror and mass murder.

You really believe that statement? The bill of rights by definition is for individual citizens not for the government. That in and of itself says that the 2nd amendment applies to the average citizens right to bear arms.

The revolutionary war never would have happened if the average citizen had not owned their own guns because they would not have been able to fight the British army and eventually win the independence of the US.

Add to that the statements from our founding fathers:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." - Joseph Story

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, including recent supreme court rulings that support the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms without infringement, you and people like you continue to argue that our founding fathers really meant through the 2nd amendment that only government operated militia have a right to bear arms. Unbelievable.

Read what the Second Amendment of the US Constitution says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

" A well regulated Militia" means there are controls, there is supervision, there are rules.

"being necessary to the security of a free State," there is a purpose, to wit, security of a free State. The State meaning the USA is secure in being free from other foreign control and is a self determining entity, sovereign if you will.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The people shall have a right to maintain arms under the regulated Militia in order to maintain a secure free state. They shall have a right to participate by keeping arms under the well regulated Militia for the specific purpose. There is no right to have an arsenal for carte blanche freedom. It must be within the scope "a well regulated Militia" for the constitutionally prescribed purpose.

So yes, I fully believe the Congress of the United States of America has an obligation to set forth regulatory principles and rules of weaponry and firearms. I strongly believe the regulations must conform to the requirements of the second amendment and that they have the right and responsibility of excluding weapons of terrorism, mass murder, destruction from possession, sell, manufacturing, and tranportation except as it comports with the support of a well regulated militia(non civilian).

stc1993, you are 100% mistaken. SCOTUS has fundamentally agreed with my position. Firearms can be regulated, registered and defined. For 10 years an assault weapon ban was in place but expired because W and Cheney didn't renew it at sunset. (Remember Cheney, the guy who got drunk and shot his host.) SCOTUS has disallowed felons, psychiatric patients and certain types of violent offenders from owning guns. What I propose about assault weapons, terroist firearms, etc. would certainly pass constitutional muster with SCOTUS. Get over it!

Son of Heard, are you stalking me? It doesn't matter. I'll answer your question any way. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act expired in 2004. The law's definition of assault weapon was as a result of political wrangling and left loop holes you could drop a grenade factory through. The definition is on the net somewhere. For the purpose of defining the weaponry I just look at their effect and purpose (mass murder, war, terroristic activity, mayhem, etc. etc.) The simple definition is hand held weaponry with ten or more rounds in a magazine or firing capacity. Consign them to law enforcement or military. As it relates to civilian use there is no difference in assault firearms or terrorist weaponary. The reasonable proposition does not infringe on the rights for other handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.

You are more stupid than I suspected, son of Heard. Legal weaponry definitions expired in 2004 with the legislation. Until the laws are signed the definitions remain fluid. For the purposes of discussion everyone knows what is being discussed. I suggest a course in 8th grade civics you can get it online or over at the afterschool program with Lorenzo and the fellas. It will be a bit tough for you since it's written at the 7th or 8th grade level. But try it it could help you.

Son of Heard, 20 six year olds and 8 adults slaughtered is whooping good time for you but not for people who do not live in a delusional, thought disordered world. No one on the blog, even though who disagree, is laughing but you and that says a lot about you. Stupidity is not your worst problem.

You know good and well I, among others, was laughing only at you and your distorted, effete concepts of violence prevention. You should be ashamed of trying to trot out those dead babies to make a point on a sillyass internet comment section. I am embarrassed for you.

Son of Heard, you have treated the subject throughout the blog with contemptible oafish humor. Whether you were reporting airline schedules or street directions or bleating how you were laughing. As it became obvious you had little to offer by way of discussion your delusional thought disorder pushed you into personal slurs and vacuous commentary. You don't have the gumption to feel embarassment for yourelf or anyone else. This is not the subject to be whooping and laughing about. I say again stupidity is not your worst problem.

Son of Heard, with your delusional processes it would be inappropriate for you to attempt an explanation of anything to anyone. You will avoid the mental frustration and anguish. You are quite right so stick with that wisdom and you'll expire from life a more contented person. You will not be bright but more content. Now run along the fellas over at Lorenzo's are looking for you.

I note that when you are proven wrong, you either ignore the issue from then on, or result to infantile personal insults. If I were a betting man, I would wager that in real life, you just move along and keep your 8th grade name calling to yourself when in the presence of adult males. No need to respond. I already know the answer.

Son of Heard, I haven't been proved wrong yet and certainly not by a sheep lover like yourself. As for the little jabs. Don't start crying. If you can't take them don't dish them out. Better luck next time with the fellas over at Shepherd Lorenzo's sheep pen.

You flatter yourself. I find you mildly amusing at best. However, you only bore me now, with your repetitive, redundant insults. Let me know when you have a fact based position. Until then, I will disengage from wasting further time on your drivel.

Son of Heard, quit crying and whining. Contribute something to a discussion and stop sniping like a feist dog with mange. Your admission of boredom is an indicator of low intellectual wattage and it might be to your advantage to stick to the comics in hard copy.